1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.

[Lucky Mike]

This 1932 Roadster was built in the early 80's. It has a 1932 title tied to the frame. The frame is right in every single aspect except it does not have the reveal. Does anyone have any idea why it would not have the reveal? One person told me that it may have been made in the UK or Germany and imported. Another person told me it was a truck frame. Another person said maybe it was an aftermarket frame, but I have confirmed it is not a Just A Hobby frame. It is absolutely correct in every way, just no reveal.

[Lucky Mike]

Pics

[Bassman/NZ]

It's aftermarket. I remember those frames from the 70s.

[Lucky Mike]

Thank you Bassman. I do have a title, but let's not go down that path just yet. Do recall the name of the company that you are thinking of? It is not a LoBeck / Just a Hobby frame. I confirmed that.

[Bassman/NZ]

Sorry, I just remember seeing adverts in rodding magazines.

[sturgis39]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

This was posted on the HAMB. I told him to post it on the Ford Barn. The Hamb had along discussion and there were thoughts about pickup truck frames and first 32 Fords not having the reveal. I hope more people will respond to this question

[Lucky Mike]

Thank you Sturgis39.

[jim1932]

Ok for those of us who don't know, what is a reveal?

[Randy in ca]

I believe he's referring to the shape of the frame where the front fenders attach.

[37 Coupe]

The accentuated line or profile on the frame sides that made it a part of the bodystyle unlike the Model A Ford that covered up this part of the frame above running board. You cannot mistake the beautifull 1932 Ford frame.

[Lucky Mike]

The small lip on the bottom of the frame rail.

[TJ]

It is definitely not a Deuce Factory or TCI frame. Are they one piece rails or are they 3 piece rails? Look inside the rails and see if they if the top and bottom are welded to the side.

[sturgis39]

Originally Posted by Lucky Mike

The small lip on the bottom of the frame rail.

I posted the question on The Early Ford V8 Club of America. I actually posted the question in the general discussion and the 32 Ford discussion.

[DavidG]

Given that the cross members are bolted in and many bolt holes are missing, it's a real stretch to describe it as "right in every single aspect....". This is not an original '32 Ford frame.

[jim1932]

Originally Posted by Lucky Mike

The small lip on the bottom of the frame rail.

Thanks for the explanation.

[Karl Wescott]

This may also be a modified frame. Someones attempt to "clean up" what they considered detail clutter on an orignial frame. Looking at the side view there is a little of the reveal line showing near the rear. Many of the early hot rodders did not have today's quasi religious worship of the "original deuce" and would trick out the car by changing things like that.

As to a 60's repro frame... I doubt it, I don't think anyone would do it. Original 1932 frames were readily available used until the early 1970's and it was a MAJOR investment for Deuce Factory to make the first stamped side rails. Lobeck/Just a Hobby rails were fabricated, not stamped.

[Fordors]

A firm by the name of John Thompsons reproed '32 frames for the Allard Motor Car Co. when their supply of Deuce frames dried up in England. Similar, but not matching, they had no reveal, the crossmembers were different, the rear kick-up was higher, and the very front of the frame horns was square cut, not radiused like the '32. The front 'member was flanged both front and rear, kind of like a rear crossmember, the center was different and may not (don't know for sure) have had the K struts like original, and the rear had a deeper drop to it.
When I first saw Luckys frame I thought of the Allard but the frame horns on his frame have the radius. Next the Mike Martens frame came to mind, but his were done about forty years ago and I cannot recall if he put in the reveal or not. In any event it's not a Martens, as his were fabricated from three pieces and not stamped. Martens was in Mendota,IL and his stuff predated Just A Hobby which was started by Dave Gale. I think Martens got out when the Deuce Factory stampings came out, but while he was in business he did some Model 40 frames too.
Luckys photo seems to show rails that are not fabricated but stamped, other than that I don't know what they are. The mystery continues.

[Lucky Mike]

Thank you Fordors! Great info. I spoke to a gentlemen I met on the HAMB forum offline. He told me that he had a 1932 frame that he bought a few years back from a farmer that did not have the reveal. I asked again, it didn't have the reveal. He said no. He said I am a builder, I know frames and I had a 32 frame with the reveal and the one I got without the reveal sitting right next to each other and he said "they were exactly the same, except without the reveal". I spoke to another gentlemen that said he had heard the very first frames in non-US facilities did not have the reveal. As you said Fordors....."the mystery continues".

And yes, these are stamped.

[Fordors]

Here's a scan of a page from Petersen Publishing's "Ford In The Thirties" published in 1976. The bottom of the page shows what the writer believed to be a Spanish prototype of a '32 Fordor. It is on a 112" wheelbase, has longer running boards, the European styled louver accents like a Model A, the hood side and the body extends deeper which hides much of the frame, and granted it is hard to tell for sure but there might not be a reveal there.
Other than this publication I have never seen, nor have I heard of any details surrounding this car. I show it to reinforce the statement that when it comes to Deuces no one knows for sure what was or wasn't. If something did not leave Engineering and see production it might have been spirited outside the company and hidden away. Ever hear of Warhoops, the scrap yard where GM sent their dream cars? The one's that were to be crushed but never were?
My gut feeling says the frame is a later repro, maybe someone will know who did rails like yours.

[Mart]

I'd be amazed if it were a Ford factory frame. Tell you what, take a real good close up picture of the factory ford stamped in frame number and it should be easy to judge if they are factory stamped or stamped by someone else after the event. The factory numbers are quite distinctive.

It is most likely a repro or a one off built by a skilled individual.

If you really think it is factory, show the number.

Mart.

[PeteVS]

I don't have our '32 frame at hand, but the shape of the very front of the rail, shown in the first picture, doesn't look kosher to me.

[alchemy]

Originally Posted by Mart

it should be easy to judge if they are factory stamped or stamped by someone else after the event. The factory numbers are quite distinctive.

There are new stamps made that are EXACTLY like Ford's numbers. Yes, EXACTLY.

[DavidG]

PeteVS,

You're absolutely right! Looking at that first photo, neither of the horizontal portions of the frame rails taper towards the front like an original. The bottom one is so oversize that you could not possibly install the U-shaped radiator apron between the frame rails.

[Lucky Mike]

DavidG - what does "taper towards the front like an original" mean? Also what does "the bottom one is so oversized" mean? I will post more picture if I know to what you are referring.

I still have the original stamped 1932 commerical truck grill that came on the car when I got it. This stamped grill only came with the 1932 truck.

[DavidG]

From the front of the front cross member, the top and bottom side of the "C" cross section of the frame have a slight taper to them so that at the very front edge of the frame, these top and bottom sides are noticeably narrower than they are at the from cross member.

A fellow barner asked me to look at your thread posted on HAMB, I did so but I did not post a comment as things were already way out of control.

Ford did not use the word "truck" in concert with the word "pickup" in 1932. That's because the pickup was classified as a commercial vehicle along with the panel delivery, station wagon, and later in the model year, the sedan delivery. All of those vehicles have the same 106" wheelbase chassis as the passenger cars with the exception of the number leaves in the rear spring. Ford used the word "truck" solely in reference to the big trucks with either a 131 1/2" or 157" wheelbase. If you have a copy of the 1932 body parts catalogue you will notice this distinction in nomenclature between the pickups and "trucks" such as the one shown in the Ford Archives photo below.

[Lucky Mike]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Yes, understood on the truck vs. pick up. I think it is the angle of the photo. I will take another.

[Lucky Mike]

Is this what you are talking about?

[sturgis39]

There were a some replies on the Early Ford v8 Club of America. They said that all pickups and cars had the reveal. They posted a picture of Henry stamping one of the first frames and it has the reveal. One reply was kind of hostile. The 32 Forum has the picture of Henry and the general discussion has the hostile comment.

Post 27 on this forum seems to be a different area than what I thought we were discussing. The area I thought we were discussing was at the running boards

[Lucky Mike]

Sturgis39. That picture is of Ford with the first v8, not all 32's were v8's as you know. My car was originally a 4 banger. There has been some what I would consider hostile or bordering on hostile comments. Frankly, I don't understand the hostility. This is my car, I am seeking knowledge. Frankly I don't care if it is original or repo. I don't plan to sell it. I don't need to sell it. I am just trying to sort out several conflicting opinions. I have now spoken to 3 people who have owned 32's without the reveal. That said, I have yet to find what I would consider authoritative proof. If I never do, I don't care, but I will continue to seek.

[DavidG]

While Ford's records indicate that some very early 32 frames differed between those used with fours and those used with V-8s to the extent of different front cross members, why rely on opinions? You can contact the source of authoritative information about Fords, namely the Benson Ford Research Center in Dearborn, MI and request copies of the original engineering drawing and engineering release forms for the chassis frame side rail. The part number is B-5105 for the right side and B-5016 for the left side. That drawing and the accompanying engineering release forms should tell you what changes, if any, were made to the side rails during the course of '32 model production.

[Lucky Mike]

DavidG - AWESOME! Thank you. I will do so indeed. I wish I would have known this before I bought $500.00 worth of books....oh well.

Mike

[Lucky Mike]

DavidG. I have had a couple of exchanges with the research center. It is very exciting stuff! I want to finish my conversation with them before I post all of the details, but for now, I will leave you with this quote (caps added by me). "....however, there was a stamped line following the fender & running board line added to the frame rail AFTER October 13, 1931." Stay tuned!

[Tom Walker]

I am no Model A expert, but is it not more like Model A than V8?

[Mart]

Mike, I'm trying not to be negative, but wouldn't Oct 31 be pre production for a 32? I just had a search on google and one source says the new 4 cylinder engine was put in to production in Nov 32. (In 32's presumably). People had to wait until March for the V8's.

Not conclusive, but a little more info.

Mart.

[Lucky Mike]

No problem Mart, maybe technically, but it would still be a 1932 frame pre-production or production vs. another year (say 1931). Make sense? I will ask my Ford researcher when I get the response.

[DavidG]

That's a bit early given that Ford's records show that the first production part orders to suppliers was for a January, 1932 Job#1, which were subsequently cancelled when the decision was made to delay vehicle production and the public introduction dates based on the availability of production quality V-8 engines (March 10 and 31, respectively). There is usually also a delay of varying amounts of time between when a drawing is made or changed (all noted in the upper right hand corner of the drawing) and when a part is released for production and then a further delay possible before production parts are available because of the time required to create or modify existing tooling. The creation of the dies involved in the production of chassis frame side rails would be a major undertaking time and money wise as would their modification or recreation to create the subject "stamped line".

It will be very interesting (at least to me) to learn what you come up with. The Archives are loaded with '32 parts drawings that never went into production or only into pre-production (for example, the first production V-8 engine, #18-1 was the 243rd one built, but only the first deemed suitable as a "production" engine. That's why the engineering release forms are a necessary adjunct to the drawings as they will indicate which parts were released for production purposes and at what design level those parts were when so released.

Good hunting!

[Lucky Mike]

DavidG. You are a wealth knowledge! The researcher didn't specify "production or pre-production" in the chain, but the context of the entire discussion is the 1932 frame. Initially the researcher was just speaking to me about the concept of the "revealed frame" verses the lip or the flare at the bottom of the frame rail. I clarified that in my follow up questions. I will clarify "pre-production vs. production" as well as I continue to correspond (which is happening slower than I would like). Beyond the obvious, in your opinion what would be the difference between pre-production and production? Meaning if my frame is indeed real and it somehow got out of the factory, what would it be? I definitely see the point on #18-1 being the 243rd built, my question would be, what happened to the 242 previous ones? I will also ask about engineering release form. Thank you for the well wishes. Once I get as far as I think I will get, I will post the email chain between myself and the researcher. Thanks.

[Lucky Mike]

Good morning. A good friend of mine who is familar with my "reveal" quest was in Las Vegas yestrerday with the owner of the SoCal Speed Shop there. He was discussing my frame and the owner said, "I have a friend that has one of those old 32 frames WITHOUT THE REVEAL". He is going to give my buddy his friend's phone number. My friend is going to call him and get pictures and get his story. This is now the 4th person I have spoken to or heard of who says they have "an early 32 Ford frame without the reveal". I will update you all when I speak to him and I hope to hear back from the reserach institute today.

[Bruce Lancaster]

Just for your further reading, I've posted lists of '32 and other early Ford patents on here somewhere. There are several patents relating to production and non-production aspects of the chassis design, none of them unfortunately actually relevant here.
Ford tended to get the patents out after stuff was already in production, but cranking through the patents of Model A--1936 period gives a lot of information on Ford tech thinking.
Ford also had a lot of wild-card patents, planetary tranmissions (not Model T!), pumpless oiling, rear engines and wild chassis designs...I think HF wanted to make sure that the Ford tradition of doing nearly everything differently from the industry at large carried on.

[DavidG]

With regard to your question about the destiny of the first 242 V-8 engines, think of them as test engines for durability purposes (or experimental engines trying out new or different ideas). Normally, they would be test run on equipment designed for that purpose until they failed, torn down to determine the reason for the failure, and either repaired and tested further or scrapped. Several of those pre-production or experimental V-8 engines ended up in a storage building in Greenfield Village in Dearborn and were eventually auctioned off along with other such engines from both before and after 1932 about twenty years ago or so. This was contrary for Ford's standing practice and their survival can likely be attributed to the fact that they had be donated the "The Henry Ford".

Someone earlier commented on GM's sloppy followup regarding the destruction of prototype and pre-production parts and vehicles and implied that Ford might have been similarly lax. It would seem that Ford had a better system as very few pre-production parts or vehicles over the years have survived unless they served a Ford purpose.

It is possible and remains to be determined via the engineering release forms that frame rails made before the reveals were added (which had to be very few given the 1931 date of the change) were released for general production use only on frames destined for commercial vehicles (like some other '32 parts which were changed early in the model year like manually adjustable shock absorbers, for example) rather than scrapped. Hopefully the surviving records will reflect that one way or the other.

Please be patient with the BFRC staff assisting you. They are not necessarily "car" people who have a basic understanding of historic automotive design and manufacturing practices but rather are archivists.

Lastly, no matter what you find at the BFRC, it would advance your case exponentially if one of the four fellows you refer to could come up with some photos of an original frame with flat side rails and all or at least two out of three of the original cross members still riveted in place and not having most of the original holes for the fenders and running boards eliminated, which seems to be the case in the photos of your frame.

[Lucky Mike]

DavidG, thank you again for all of the time you spend responding to me and sharing your knowledge with me. I am eating it up and truly appriciate it. Your comment on an early commercial vehical is spot on. I have spoken to the gentlemen who originally built this car and he told me that "I got the starter vehical from a farmer down the road from me, it was his 'farm truck'". As I mentioned earlier, the grill that I took off the car when I got is was a 1932 commercial, stamped truck grill. I still have it. I also know from that same gentlemen that is was originally a 4 cylinder vehical. Also as far as the holes that are missing from my frame. They are there, the gentlemen who built that car that I refer to above also told me that he filled the holes where the fenders were attached. He said when he got the starter "truck" it had fenders. BTW, I am only using "truck" as to quote the original builder. I understand the difference between truck and pickup.

I will indeed be patient with them at the BFRC, I am very grateful for their help.

I agree on the advancement of my case, I am working on pictures. I have messaged the 3 gentlemen and they have not got back to me yet and the guy in Vegas is going to get in touch with my friend.

Hopefully more soon.

[Lucky Mike]

Update everyone. I spoke to the Ford reseracher and they said it is going to be a couple of weeks as they are doing a write up. I will let you know.

[VeryTangled]

Awesome discussion everyone, thanks for all the time and knowledge you fellas are contributing. I know zero about '32's so am trying to follow closely and am learning a lot.

Sorry if I missed it, but I can't figure out the exact item that is a "reveal." I think it was stated that this photo shows it, but my question is where? Can some helpful 'Barner direct me to the place in this photo that shows the reveal?

-VT/Jeff

Edited, 8-30-2014 to add photo of blue car, see the 'flare' as it goes towards the ground, or the running board, originally.

http://www.earlyfordv8.org/forum/fil...otos%20215.jpg

[DavidG]

It is the flared area running horizontally along the bottom edge of the frame side rail between the front and rear fenders. Its presence (plus a class A finish on the side rail) eliminates the need for separate running board aprons such as were used on Model As.

[VeryTangled]

Awesome DavidG, I went and read again from the beginning and now I'm understanding better. If it had been on Lucky's frame it would be visible in picture 3 of post 2. It is visible in post #11's photo.

-VT/Jeff

[32 Model B]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Didn't Ford also stamp the number in the rear axle area on top of the drivers side rail?

[Lucky Mike]

yes, 3 spots. Firewall, mid-frame and rear frame.

[Mart]

Mike, have you personally witnessed these stamped numbers on YOUR frame?

If you have, why have you not at least given an indication of what the number approximately is?

There is a lot of ifs, buts and maybes here, but the one crucial piece of evidence has been omitted or avoided.

I hope you do have what you think you have, but without a meaningful number stamped at the ford factory, it would be hard to prove they were made by Ford.

Mart.

[Lucky Mike]

I understand your sentiment Mart. Please remember I did not build this car. I have never seen the frame without the body let alone bare. At this point, I have decided to wait for the Ford Researchers rather than add further to the chain with partial information and personal speculation. When I hear back from the researcher, I will do a full write up. Depending on what they say, I may indeed remove the body from the frame as part of my quest. At this point, though, I think it is prudent to just wait. I am as eager as everyone else, but clearly based on what the researcher initially said there were / are frames out there made before Oct. 13, 1931 which did not have the "line" that was added thereafter.

[vulture]

I have seen a few Martens frames and all of them had reveals but like you said they were 3 or 4 piece rails and the reveal was on the side but came to a sharp point. We have not come across a non revealed

Originally Posted by Fordors

A firm by the name of John Thompsons reproed '32 frames for the Allard Motor Car Co. when their supply of Deuce frames dried up in England. Similar, but not matching, they had no reveal, the crossmembers were different, the rear kick-up was higher, and the very front of the frame horns was square cut, not radiused like the '32. The front 'member was flanged both front and rear, kind of like a rear crossmember, the center was different and may not (don't know for sure) have had the K struts like original, and the rear had a deeper drop to it.
When I first saw Luckys frame I thought of the Allard but the frame horns on his frame have the radius. Next the Mike Martens frame came to mind, but his were done about forty years ago and I cannot recall if he put in the reveal or not. In any event it's not a Martens, as his were fabricated from three pieces and not stamped. Martens was in Mendota,IL and his stuff predated Just A Hobby which was started by Dave Gale. I think Martens got out when the Deuce Factory stampings came out, but while he was in business he did some Model 40 frames too.
Luckys photo seems to show rails that are not fabricated but stamped, other than that I don't know what they are. The mystery continues.

[Lucky Mike]

Farm "truck" or better said, "pickup". To reveal or not reveal, that is the question.

[Lucky Mike]

This pickup has the reveal.

[DavidG]

It would be astounding if it did not given the number of late production features.

[Lucky Mike]

Agreed. According to the VIN is was made in July 1932.....BUT, I will bet if you think about it you will know why I bought this truck and what my plans are as relates to the Roadster frame without the reveal. Any guess's?

[1932 V8]

Just my opinion but it would be a shame to take that truck apart . It is very cool as it sits . Just my 2c

[Lucky Mike]

trust me, it will be what it was when it was originally made. I am goign to bring two things that were meant to be together, back together. It will be original, beautiful and perfect.

[Lucky Mike]

I heard from the Ford Research Center. I should hear back later this week or early next.

Mike

[alchemy]

I was reading my copy of Thacker's "Deuce" book last night, and saw two different archival pics of an October '31 produced prototype chassis. It has a lot of peculiarities, including no reveal on the side. But I did note it did not have the notches on the top for the cowl band bolts. Yours does.

This proto chassis also had a very odd K-member, and yours is regular, correct? The proto K is actually a whole lot like a '49 F-1 center crossmember, which hangs down below the tail of the transmission.

So, since your chassis has the cowl band notches, and the October '31 proto pic shows none, I'm guessing your chassis is still unexplainable (so far).

[Curt Cummings]

There was also a outfit out of Beaverton Oregon that produced aftermarket frames for Model A, 32 or a 32 frame pinched for a Model A and a 33-34 frame. They were Hi-Tec Products. I purchased the frame that is under my 31 coupe from them. The 32 frame they offered did not have the reveal. They also stamped the serial # for your title into the frame so it would match the car. I still have the invoice for it in my file.

[deuce_roadster]

I would think the picture of Henry stamping 18-1 on a frame with the reveal is all you need here. I would bet a lot on the frame in question being a remake. While they were mocking up prototypes they probably had frames made out of oak but that doesn't mean they ever sold one.

[Bobs32]

I found my serial number on the passenger side, on top of the frame rail when I applied anti rust to the whole frame. It was orange epoxy material that brought the number right up. I didn't notice it while I was sanding down the frame. I'd like to find the one on the driver's side. My patent plate on the firewall has several patent numbers on it. I assume the serial number is stamped on the clear area, that's not black, about mid way down. I gotta check that. It will be tough though, because the fella that painted my firewall painted over the patent plate.

[Fordors]

Bob, the patent plate is just that, there are no numbers pertinent to the vehicle registration on it. Is that a Cabriolet or a Roadster in your avatar?

[Bobs32]

Yes, I thought that clear area, on the patent plate, was blank. Maybe the previous poster is talking about another area on the firewall that the serial number appears. My car is a Roadster. My father bought it in 1957. I friended you so you can check out my before and after pictures.

[Fordors]

Very nice car, and especially cool that it's been in the family since '57. Good to see it ready for the street again.

[DavidG]

Bob,

The serial number (which is in fact the engine number) was not located anywhere on the firewall. It is located on top of the transmission bell housing and on top of the left side of the chassis frame, usually in three locations (on passenger car chassis), the only one of which is visible when the body is on the chassis frame is just forward and slightly inward from the left foot of the firewall.

[Bobs32]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Thanks for the info Dave, I found the one by the firewall but didn't know about the other places. I'll friend you so you can see my before and after pictures.

[Lucky Mike]

Well Barners.....I HAVE THE ANSWER and it is AWESOME NEWS for me and I think you will all be glad to learn something new today. See below:

Hi Mike,
Finally have a response for you from our specialist:
We do not have the drawings of the frame assembly. However, we do have drawings for the “frame side member” part number B-5016 LH. This is the long “C” section on the driver’s side. There are 16 microfilms of this part with the original drawing being completed on 7-10-1931 and the newest date of 9-15-1932. The reason for all these microfilms was to document the changes from the original drawing. On the oldest microfilm of the drawing there were nine revisions. On the microfilm dated 12-17-1931 are scribbled marks showing proposed changes to add the reveal depression starting behind the steering box holes and continuing to the area that begins to bend upward around rear wheels. The microfilm dated after that shows these drawing changes were officially added on 12-21-1931 as part of engineering change number 2006-53. This engineering change record and the release notice that went to the factory are not in the BFRC archives. Usually when a change is made to the engineering of a part, there is a period of time when the factory creates the tooling to make parts with the change on them. That time varies with the complexity of the change, but would be about 3 months after the change was released to the manufacturing departments. Therefore, it would be reasonable to believe that there were some frames built without the reveal stamped into them. It has been documented in the reference books that there were many changes to the frames of 1932 cars and production was held up until March due to the introduction of the V-8 engines. Many frame changes were completed by the factory, but some may have been installed by dealers. The reveal is one change that could only be done at the stamping plant that made the frame.
The frame reveal can be seen on the microfilm dated 12-21-1931 at section A-A. This is the area that can be seen on the side of the car. The 1932 models did not have a sheet metal.
The sheet metal mentioned in the original answer was in reference to the material known as an “Apron” that mounts between the body and the running boards of 1931 & older cars. On 1932 cars the side of the frame is visible between the body and the running boards, which is why this area of the frame was finished and painted like the body.
References:
The Early Ford V8 As Henry Built IT by Edward P. Francis and George DeAnglis
Pages 16,17, 32, 33,34
I.S.B.N. #0-911383-01-8
Benson Ford Research Center ref # 629.2222 F699 F817 1982

The 1932 Ford Book----A Production Chronicle and Restoration Guide---volume 1
Pages 4-22 and 5-2
Available from “The Early Ford V8 Club of America”
B.F.R.C. ref 629.2222 F699 E1932 2008 v.1 c.1

The 1932 Ford Book----A Production Chronicle and Restoration Guide---volume 2
Available from “The Early Ford V8 Club of America”
B.F.R.C. ref 629.2222 F699 E1932 2008 v.2 c.1

Microfilm
Frame side member
Ford Motor Co. part #B-5016 dates 7-10-31 though 9-15-32
Location A12-C-2 box 18
I hope this information is of assistance and thank you again for your request.
Stephanie
Stephanie Lucas, Research Specialist
Benson Ford Research Center
The Henry Ford
Reading Room Hours:
9:30am - 5:00pm Tuesday - Friday
Closed Mondays, Weekends, and Holidays

[hb32]

Bringing up an old post.
I am in the process of purchasing a Model B pickup that does not have the reveal either. Frame looks like a 32 with riveted cross members and has a B motor in it. Bellhousing flange is stamped with a number that reflects a May 32 build date.
Here is where things get fuzzy. I am aware of the frame VIN stampings in 3 places and this one may have 4.
Vin on front by firewall foot is illedgible. There are stampings on the rear face of the rear cross member that are fairly readable but no star either side of the stamping and hard to tell if it starts with a "B" or "18". Same #`s on top of crossmember fairly crisp with some upside down #`s. The numbers do not correlate with 1932 but fall within the range of 1934.
Not in a position to pull the cab to look at the "B" post area but suspect that the #`s will be the same.
The vehicle was titled using partial numbers off the side of the block which I have had no luck identifying by research.
I am aware of replacement frames but one with out a reveal and then stamped incorrectly?

Thoughts

[34pickup]

Are you certain it isn't a 1933-34?

[hb32]

Originally Posted by 34pickup

Are you certain it isn't a 1933-34?

Yes.
Cab and metal are 32. Wheel base is definitely 106" and frame definitely as all the parts of a 32.

[Bulligen]

It might be a Martins frame. I had one back it 1980. It did have the reveals however. It was a very well built frame. I am sure he would have done whatever the client requested though!

[hb32]

Originally Posted by Bulligen

It might be a Martins frame. I had one back it 1980. It did have the reveals however. It was a very well built frame. I am sure he would have done whatever the client requested though!

Including riveted cross members?
Perplexing me are the VIN stampings in the frame not being close to 32, the star stampings not there and the extra vin location.

[DavidG]

For what it is worth, Ford's instructions to the assembly plants worldwide was to only stamp the engine number in one location on all '32 commercial and truck chassis. That location was the traditional one by the firewall leg on the left side. It made some sense given that many commercial and truck chassis were sold without bodies (behind the cab). Do exceptions exist? Of course!

[ford38v8]

Originally Posted by Lucky Mike

Well Barners.....I HAVE THE ANSWER and it is AWESOME NEWS for me and I think you will all be glad to learn something new today. See below:

Hi Mike,
Finally have a response for you from our specialist:
We do not have the drawings of the frame assembly. However, we do have drawings for the “frame side member” part number B-5016 LH. This is the long “C” section on the driver’s side. There are 16 microfilms of this part with the original drawing being completed on 7-10-1931 and the newest date of 9-15-1932. The reason for all these microfilms was to document the changes from the original drawing. On the oldest microfilm of the drawing there were nine revisions. On the microfilm dated 12-17-1931 are scribbled marks showing proposed changes to add the reveal depression starting behind the steering box holes and continuing to the area that begins to bend upward around rear wheels. The microfilm dated after that shows these drawing changes were officially added on 12-21-1931 as part of engineering change number 2006-53. This engineering change record and the release notice that went to the factory are not in the BFRC archives. Usually when a change is made to the engineering of a part, there is a period of time when the factory creates the tooling to make parts with the change on them. That time varies with the complexity of the change, but would be about 3 months after the change was released to the manufacturing departments. Therefore, it would be reasonable to believe that there were some frames built without the reveal stamped into them. It has been documented in the reference books that there were many changes to the frames of 1932 cars and production was held up until March due to the introduction of the V-8 engines. Many frame changes were completed by the factory, but some may have been installed by dealers. The reveal is one change that could only be done at the stamping plant that made the frame.
The frame reveal can be seen on the microfilm dated 12-21-1931 at section A-A. This is the area that can be seen on the side of the car. The 1932 models did not have a sheet metal.
The sheet metal mentioned in the original answer was in reference to the material known as an “Apron” that mounts between the body and the running boards of 1931 & older cars. On 1932 cars the side of the frame is visible between the body and the running boards, which is why this area of the frame was finished and painted like the body.
References:
The Early Ford V8 As Henry Built IT by Edward P. Francis and George DeAnglis
Pages 16,17, 32, 33,34
I.S.B.N. #0-911383-01-8
Benson Ford Research Center ref # 629.2222 F699 F817 1982

The 1932 Ford Book----A Production Chronicle and Restoration Guide---volume 1
Pages 4-22 and 5-2
Available from “The Early Ford V8 Club of America”
B.F.R.C. ref 629.2222 F699 E1932 2008 v.1 c.1

The 1932 Ford Book----A Production Chronicle and Restoration Guide---volume 2
Available from “The Early Ford V8 Club of America”
B.F.R.C. ref 629.2222 F699 E1932 2008 v.2 c.1

Microfilm
Frame side member
Ford Motor Co. part #B-5016 dates 7-10-31 though 9-15-32
Location A12-C-2 box 18
I hope this information is of assistance and thank you again for your request.
Stephanie
Stephanie Lucas, Research Specialist
Benson Ford Research Center
The Henry Ford
Reading Room Hours:
9:30am - 5:00pm Tuesday - Friday
Closed Mondays, Weekends, and Holidays

This is the first time I've seen this thread. I read the whole thing, finding it very interesting. I also find it interesting and somewhat baffling that it took a year and 5 months for the first reply since the great response from the Henry as posted by Lucky Mike, and even then without comment on Mike's information. No wonder why Mike hasn't posted anything on the Barn since his post of 3/27/13.

[hb32]

Originally Posted by ford38v8

This is the first time I've seen this thread. I read the whole thing, finding it very interesting. I also find it interesting and somewhat baffling that it took a year and 5 months for the first reply since the great response from the Henry as posted by Lucky Mike, and even then without comment on Mike's information. No wonder why Mike hasn't posted anything on the Barn since his post of 3/27/13.

This info was also on the HAMB.
The first time I read was on researching why my potential pickup did not have the reveal either.

[hb32]

Dragging this back up for those that have not seen Tony Thackers book, 32 Ford Deuce

[DavidG]

It is relevant to note that the date of that photo is more than five months prior to Job #1 on March 10, 1932, i.e. it's a prototype chassis.

[rotorwrench]

From what I gather, the only thing that made the change over to the 1932 model easier than the model A was that they didn't have to build a new assembly plant but they did have to make a lot of additions to the relatively new Dearborn plant at the rouge complex. I'm sure they had a lot of engineering problems before they even assembled the first car. FoMoCo had the advantage of putting the scrap back into the furnace if things didn't work out. The initial design was likely changed a few times before they decided to do away with aprons and just doll up the frame to match up with the fenders. Commercials would have been the only vehicles that may have had something of this nature to start with but Henry was very shrewd on the idea of interchangeability for his products for cost of production reasons so it would be doubtful that the basic design of the cars would have changed after production began.

The first Model A cars or AR cars as they are commonly referred, had a different front motor mount, no shock absorbers, and a lot of little things that were different but the basic design was never changed enough for a unknowing eye to recognize on the outside. The lack of a flowing joint line between the frame and the running boards would have stuck out like a sore thumb. Edsel Ford would've had a problem with that. It would have required either an apron or a different running board design. The model B cars were surprisingly similar outwardly to the model 18 cars so there was little difference there either. Maybe some very early commercials might have been different but they seem pretty much the same as the cars on most of the ones I've seen.

I'd never say never but my skepticism is way out there on whether Ford USA manufactured frames with that noticeable an amount of difference for start up production. There should be pictures of the first cars off the line somewhere that would show how they were configured at the beginning of initial production.

I personally would not be happy with a frame that didn't have a reveal if building a 32 model car. It just would not be a deuce without it.

[DavidG]

The photo below shows the frame on Job #1, March 10, 1932 (engine #18-1, the first production version). It is clearly the flared-side frame.

Notwithstanding, I can envision that some early commercial vehicles may have had frames without the flares given Ford's propensity to minimize scrap by using up obsoleted parts on commercial vehicles.

[rockfla]

I can tell you for 100% certainty that German made frames had the "reveal" and each piece used to make the frame is stamped "made in Germany". Cross member, trans support, rear cross member, both frame rails, all are stamped.

[alchemy]

HB32 please take a nice clear pic of your K member and pedal set, and post it. Also a nice shot of the smooth frame sides.

I love early '32 parts and am always looking to learn more about them.

While you are taking pics, how about the driver's side of the firewall, the underside of the roof's visor, and the gauge panel and column drop?

[hb32]

Originally Posted by alchemy

HB32 please take a nice clear pic of your K member and pedal set, and post it. Also a nice shot of the smooth frame sides.

I love early '32 parts and am always looking to learn more about them.

While you are taking pics, how about the driver's side of the firewall, the underside of the roof's visor, and the gauge panel and column drop?

Cab and running boards are still on but will do what I can. Pedal set is out getting ready to mod the brakes for hyd`s.

[OHV DeLuxe]

Light duty pick-up barnfind in Norway, all the familiar cross members, no reveal.

[deuce lover]

32 chassis and body parts on a farm where I am living in the south of France.No reveal on this frame.The pic of the firewall pad is of a 4dr sedan,not part of the one with the chassis.

[rockfla]

Deuce Lover & OHC Deluxe

Are you frames stamped where they were made i.e France, Germany. England?????

[deuce lover]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

The frame here in France has lots of surface rust.I couldn't even find numbers on the frame from the steering box forward.Only number visible is on the engine block.

[DavidG]

At least some of the Ford Werke frames were stamped as shown below.

Consistent with Ford's conservation practices of the period, nothing useful was scrapped unless there were safety or reliability issues. So those early frames were used up on commercial vehicles like other parts that were obsolete for passenger car use such as the adjustable shock absorbers.

[Fordors]

One thing is illustrated by these photos for sure- Never say never when it comes to our beloved old Fords.
OHV Deluxe's pictures show a larger rear window and different body lines so that must be a body built by an aftermarket firm, and in deuce lover's pictures I wonder if that is a roadster pickup cowl, or possibly a Commercial drive-away chassis? I think I see at least one regular Ford running board bracket but there are also two other brackets just outboard of the center crossmember. Interesting stuff, thanks for posting those.

[rockfla]

@ Deuce Lover
Not sure what parts of the frame you have access too BUT if it helps each piece of the frame is stamped on ours (as in David's post above), front cross member, both frame rails, transmission cross member, rear cross member and all the bracing from the frame rails to the cross members!!!!

[Bulligen]

I had a Martens frame in the late 70s, It was 3 piece welded, it was pretty nice. At the time it was a great choice for a hot rod frame. I do remember at least one other place that was making replacement frames but with no reveal. They were pretty low cost. I don't know what the sense of that was, as the beauty of the frame is the contour of the reveal? I will bet that frame is one of those!

[deuce lover]

Originally Posted by rockfla

@ Deuce Lover
Not sure what parts of the frame you have access too BUT if it helps each piece of the frame is stamped on ours (as in David's post above), front cross member, both frame rails, transmission cross member, rear cross member and all the bracing from the frame rails to the cross members!!!!

I will have to ask the owner of the barn for the key and go look at that frame again.What is cool in that barn is a 1935 Delage 8 cyl Limousine.Its as big as a Pierce Arrow.Have to use flash lights as there is no power in that barn.He seems to think it is a commercial chassis.It has the early firewall and the 4cyl is the smaller one.Horsepower rating very different to USA models.This is the 12cv.The larger 4cyl was a 19cv.

[DavidG]

If it has the little four than at least the engine was built in Dagenham. If memory serves me right, at that time Ford France was a subsidiary of Ford Motor Company Limited of the UK.

The cowl does not look to be of Ford origin given the lack of a bead on the lower edge.

I like the four-rod rear brakes which reflected the French requirement of the time of separate controls for the hand brake. The photo below is of an early V-8 chassis in a Parisian showroom which also sports the four-rod rear brakes.

[vulture]

The knowledge on here is amazing ..... I am always learning thank you

[hb32]

Good to see this thread brought up again as I was thinking myself and the original poster were the only ones.

[alchemy]

Originally Posted by OHV DeLuxe

Light duty pick-up barnfind in Norway, all the familiar cross members, no reveal.

That sure looks like a 33-34 rear crossmember in that frame. I wonder what's up with that?

[hb32]

Originally Posted by OHV DeLuxe

Light duty pick-up barnfind in Norway, all the familiar cross members, no reveal.

Nice to see that you also have the hard to find commercial rad cap.

[hb32]

Just noticed that I neglected to post pics of mine.
Not great and nothing removed as in fenders or running boards.